Forming art ; making and responding

Journal of Visual Arts Practice Volume 7 Number 1 © 2008 Intellect Ltd
Article. English Language. doi: 10.1386/jvap.7.1.75/1
Forming art: making and responding
Harry Jamieson Retired member of staff, University of Liverpool
Abstract
The aim of this article is to present ways of thinking about the visual arts from a
wide perspective. It is a theoretical paper with important implications for those
interested in understanding the deeper processes at work in art creation and art
appreciation. It deals with issues such as complexity and information and goes on
to show how they can be circumscribed under the general concept of relationships.
It is maintained that ‘making’ and ‘reading’ art is essentially a search for relation-
ships, which may be found in the form of the image, or the symbolism for which it
acts as a ‘stand-in’. In dealing with the concept of form, special reference to two
modes of form: the material form of the image, and the mental form of mind that
the image instigates in the viewer. It goes on to show the interrelationship between
sensitivity and skill, and the part they play in art creation and art appreciation. It
ends by pointing out that as an activity given to seeking and resolving relation-
ships, art can therefore be classified as a manifestation of intelligence.
Setting the scene
Visual art as practice and as a discipline within the educational curriculum
has less distinct or less prescribed requirements than other verbal/numerical
based disciplines. Nevertheless, as a ‘form-conceiving’ and ‘form-making’
process it shares common ground with them on the basis that they are also
engaged in the construction of form; for example, in the formation of
sentences, or in the formation of mathematical equations.
The main distinction is that, in the case of the visual, perception plays a
significant role, whereas the demands on perception in the case of the verbal/
numerical are, in most instances, minimal. Having said that, we need to be
reminded that in the formulation of plans and designs, and in the formula-
tion of ideas in the process of execution, visual art as practice is engaged in
conceptualization, thus it can be seen to have a foot in both camps: the
perceptual and conceptual.
The sensory nature of visual art, and the lack of a precise language to
convey the nuances that accompany its making, introduces a specific teaching
and learning problem. But this very problem can be seen as advantageous,
freeing the artist/apprentice/student from the constraints of formalized rules.
This is not to gainsay the fact that art as practice is not without procedures
and tacit knowledge, which are imbibed during the learning process and
further employed in practice. It is here that the role of the teacher/lecturer
is significant. He, or she, is invested with the responsibility for passing on
both formal and informal tacit knowledge, and thus establishing continuity
in the transmission of core or key processes in art education.
75JVAP 7 (1) pp. 75–84 © Intellect Ltd 2008
Keywords
form and forming
complexity
relationships
skill
sensitivity
perception
JVAP_7.1_07_art_Jamieson 6/26/08 8:19 PM Page 75

This then leads to the question of what constitutes core or key elements in
the visual arts. And here we leave aside such questions as creativity and
aesthetics, which fall more in the province of value judgements. It takes
careful appraisal and research to uncover the many fundamental cues that lie
at the base of different art practices. When they are subjected to analytical
scrutiny, when questions are asked about the cognitive and ‘decision-making’
aspect of the task in hand, a new and more informed picture emerges of the
sensory/perceptual cues and cognitive demands of the learning process. First
of all, we must recognize that perception itself, the sensory aspect of knowing
and being aware, involves more than mere seeing. It involves judgements and
recognition of differences and similarities of which the learner may not be
initially or consciously aware. Moreover, although perception is always
engaged with presence, with things actually observed by the eye, it draws
upon past experiential knowledge, accessed through memory, when making
current appraisals. It is always a twofold affair, a conjoining of past and
present experience. Thus we can appreciate that, given the same event or
object to perceive, two people can educe different interpretations. Further-
more, decisions of a more openly cognitive kind have to be taken regarding
the appropriateness of the tools and materials that are specific to a particular
task in art production. It is this ‘thinking’ or intellectual aspect of art practice
that is rarely touched upon in any significant way in the debate about the role
of art in the curriculum, or of the artist’s place in society.
Having stressed the cognitive component in relation to the practice of
art-making, we are led to consider other issues, such as complexity and
information. It should be pointed out that throughout this article the term
‘information’ is defined in the sense that it is employed in information and
communication theory, and in contemporary research in neuro-psychology,
where the term is used to refer to two aspects of mental processing, i.e.,
conscious and unconscious.
Form and relationship
What also needs to be brought to the fore and considered in depth is the
connection between the terms form and relationship. All designs are the
product of ‘form-making’, i.e., making specific combinations within a uni-
tary whole. This is so whether the task is the creation of a painting or illus-
trations for print. But of even deeper significance for our interest in the
cognitive aspect of ‘form-making’ is to view the process essentially as a
‘relationship seeking’ and ‘relationship creating’ activity, the practical out-
come being the finished ‘form’. In taking this path, we focus more clearly
upon the active process of ‘art-making’, the arranging or creation of parts in
furtherance of a total form, the finished artwork.
Form as construction is none other than a series of relationships, the
interplay of parts. Seen in this light, we can portray art-making, of whatever
kind, as a forging of relationships. The artist or learner/apprentice is
engaged in juxtaposing parts and thereby establishing relationships
between them. This, we might say, is the active aspect of art creation, which
has cognitive dimensions besides the manipulation of tools and materials,
the physicality of ‘form-making’. Here we refer to the processes of the
mind, where plans are formulated and reformulated according to the exi-
gencies of the task or work in hand.
76 Harry Jamieson

What has been said about ‘form’ in terms of the artist as ‘form-maker’,
and in particular the stress placed on the inner mental contribution to
form-making, can also be seen to have a counterpart in the demands made
upon the viewers of artwork. Although their role appears to be passive, in
contrast to the artist’s which is active, it does, in fact, call for participation.
The participation we have in mind here is the active perceptual involvement
of searching or scanning which the observer engages in when faced with a
visual presentation. The work, metaphorically speaking, offers itself, but the
viewer is called upon to participate by carrying out the mental task of join-
ing the parts that make up the whole; it is a task of unification. Seen in this
light, viewing or appreciating artwork is a constructive process, on the sur-
face it appears to be passive, but below, as a process of mind, it is active. In
those instances where the viewer as observer fails to make the connections/
associations created by the artist, this can lead to what we might term a
state of incomprehension. To comprehend always means to see or intuit a
connection with something, be it a word, an idea or a thing. In the case of
the visual arts, this can be extended to include connections between, for
example, colours, shapes or lines, and indeed any symbolic images or rep-
resentations that require decoding or call for exterior reference.
Always it is a personal matter. The form that the mind of the viewer
takes in observing the work will depend not only upon the form offered by
the artist but, additionally, the influence exerted by forms already laid down
in memory as a result of previous learning and experience. Here all kinds of
issues unfold; for example, the motivation to search for connections/
relationships, the availability in memory of the significance of any symbols
which may form part of the visual presentation, and familiarity with the
style/form when the work on view is part of a greater oeuvre. A mind already
prepared, ‘in-formed’ in our terms, to see the significance of the relation-
ships will naturally be ‘more in tune’ with the artist’s intention.
From an aesthetic standpoint, the relationship may, for example, be that
of colour, tone, line or shape, or alternatively of similarity or contrast. The
design, the artwork itself, only offers proximal spatial relationships. The
fusion of the parts takes place in the mind; it is here, metaphorically speak-
ing, that ‘gaps are jumped’, that the mind itself imposes a higher order
than the one given to the visual sense. A good example is that of optical
colour blending. The artist, by putting things (colours, tones, lines or sym-
bols) in juxtaposition, offers opportunity for viewers to respond in a variety
of ways; but he or she can never complete the task of making the mental
closures that seal the unity of the work. The final act takes place in the mind
of the viewer.
The place of skill
It could be argued that art as practice is, at its core, enveloped in the issue
of relationships. They can both be perceived, given to the senses, i.e., by
observation, or conceived, in which case it is a purely mental event. And
here we can introduce the notion of skill, of perceptual skill in particular, the
sensing and awareness of relationships. Such skill relates to the ability to
detect and to be aware of unfolding relationships, which might be by design
or purely coincidental, a matter of serendipity. Here we need to interpret the
term skill not in the pejorative way that art purists often use the term, but in
77Forming art: making and responding

the way that it is used by theorists concerned with skills of a perceptual
nature. For those concerned with visual arts where time and movement
are integral parts of the process (e.g. video art and film), perceptual skill
theory is of particular significance. Here concepts such as seriality, cues
and anticipation can be seen to offer very useful ideas for those engaged in
work involving moving images.
Theorists in perceptual skills use the term to refer to competence in
dealing with sensory information. For our concern with the visual, this cen-
tres upon the perception of, amongst other things, colour, tone and line,
and their contribution to the unitary whole, the form. The perception of
form in its own right, without reference or concern for meaning, produces
an aesthetic response. On the other hand, a work of art may include signs
and/or symbols, which not only have to be perceived, but also decoded. It
is interesting to note that the aesthetic is only ever concerned with pres-
ence, with the properties of the image there before the eye. Whereas, when
symbols are incorporated into the work, there is a requirement for attention
to shift away from the image’s material presence towards something
absent, towards the idea for which it is merely a ‘stand-in’. In such a case
there is presence of a kind, an unobservable presence, but one that can be
raised to consciousness.
The point is that in either case, the perceptual or the conceptual, there
exists a need to search for relationships, which, in the case of aesthetics, is
centred upon the material form, while in the case of the symbolic, the
viewer is called upon to search for relationships which are contained only
in memory. The process of the search could be characterized in two ways:
(a) ‘reading for form’ (aesthetic), and (b) ‘reading for significance’ (meaning).
From the foregoing, we are now in a position to consider the informational
input to the mind from a particular work of art as having its source in either
its form, or its symbolic imagery, or as is often the case, in both.
The skill here lies in the artist’s ability to construct form, and to create or
appropriate symbols which resonate with prospective viewers. Secondly, the
viewer displays skill in his or her ability to be aware of the nuances of form,
and also in the ability to decode the cues or clues provided by symbols.
Additionally, art, as practice, invariably calls upon competence in han-
dling tools and materials, in this we include the whole range of supportive
material and aids that are commonly found in art establishments and
studios. This leads to a consideration of the notion of mastership, a term
with a good pedigree when applied to classical artists, and one that, in
itself, implies competence or skill acquired through practice. Thus we may
say that art as practice, as a learned phenomenon, displays mastership
when its skill base is founded upon a high degree of competence. What
that competence is in any particular instance can only be fully determined
by careful appraisal of all the factors which lie at the core of a particular art
production or procedure. And here we run into the problem of determining
the quality, and indeed quantity, of the sensory inputs which contribute
most to the unfolding of skill, to mastership of a task that may resist
verbalization. In art circles, as previously mentioned, the term skill often
carries negative connotations, and yet, when a careful analysis is made of
its place in artistic creation, it can be shown to be an integral part of the
whole process.
78 Harry Jamieson

Sense and sensitivity
Another poorly understood concept in art education and practice is that of
sensitivity. It is invariably expressed as a personality factor, as, for example,
when it is used as a term to describe persons as being ‘sensitive’, of being
disposed to ‘feelings’, to the emotive side of human personality. But when
seen from the perspective of perceptual skill theory, that is, when it is seen
as a means of gathering information, of sensing events in ongoing situa-
tions, it takes on the more robust role of being an essential part of the
whole process. Seen in this light, it relates to a heightening of awareness,
which is a product of experience or learning through practical involvement,
the outcome of which leads to a gain in knowledge or awareness of the sig-
nificant cues surrounding a particular skill. Art as practice by its very nature
demands a keen awareness of visual cues, of being sensitive to certain fea-
tures that are essential to the task at hand. Thus when we, as educators or
instructors, shift our attention from the general to the specific, we are
called upon to define, in detail, the nature and kind of cues and procedures
that are essential to the learning of a particular practice task. To make man-
ifest these issues it is important, and necessary, to make a careful analysis
of the critical elements that combine in a particular practical situation. This
may call upon a research commitment to uncover that which may not have
been consciously appreciated beforehand. A particular problem in art edu-
cation and instruction is that of verbalization, the inability to tell what one
has learnt and knows only tacitly. However, as all those involved in art edu-
cation as practice are fully aware, demonstrations and practical engage-
ment often provide an answer to this kind of problem.
To return to the sensitivity issue, and taking further the issue of skill
which we can now appreciate is sustained by an awareness, conscious or
subconscious, of sensed events, it is apparent that the notion of sensitivity
as a personality trait is too simplistic; as a vital element in the execution of
a perceptual skill, in which we include its role in art production, it can be of
special significance.
Referring back to the discussion on relationships, we can speak about
being sensitized to relationships between, for example, colour and tone.
Furthermore, the ability to discriminate in the visual arts, particularly at the
aesthetic level, invariably requires a person to be sensitive, and here the
word is used in an active way, that of sensing differences, contrasts, simi-
larities, and repetition. In a more general sense it would appear to be more
profitable to think about sensitivity as a heightening of awareness. This
would free the term from its emotive baggage and show it for what it is, i.e.
an indispensable part of learning in the visual arts.
Beyond perception
In the foregoing description of the place of skill and sensitivity in art practice,
the emphasis has been placed on perceptual involvement, and here we note
that tacit learning and consequent understanding plays a significant role.
At this point, we shift attention to a consideration of intellectual issues of a
more formal kind, namely to those of information, complexity and entropy.
Art as design, as the formulation of ideas and the presentation of them
in some significant form, is a central issue in art practice and in art education.
And while the issue of what is significant or insignificant is open to conjecture

and cultural interpretation, what is not at issue is that the design aspect of
art and the ‘reading’ of art can be complex. In dealing with the interactions
created or observed between, for example, lines, colours, tones (aesthetic
function) and/or between objects, people or settings (representative func-
tion), the artist or student artist is dealing with complexity. For the viewer,
the task becomes one of perceiving order in complexity.
In an article in the art journal Leonardo, the authors Michael Mendes-
France and Alain Henaut (1994) made some interesting observations about
complexity in relation to, in their own words, artistic creation and percep-
tion. They went on to propose that complexity could be bracketed with
‘information’ and ‘entropy’, and that, essentially, they are three facets of the
same reality. In their concluding comments they went on to stress the
necessity of sensitivity and skill in the understanding of art, thus echoing
some of the central tenets in this article.
Here we enlarge upon the complexity, information and entropy factors
that the aforementioned authors raised. They are factors rarely touched
upon in art theorizing and yet, as will be shown, they are quite fundamental
to a fuller understanding of art-making and art appreciation. Firstly we will
focus upon the concept of ‘information’, then go on to that of ‘complexity’,
and then, to complete the trilogy, turn our attention to ‘entropy’. As a term,
entropy will be familiar to those with a knowledge of physics, but less so to
those from other disciplines. However, to lighten the load, it will be explained
more fully a little later.
About information
Information, as the word proclaims, has its roots in ‘form’, as can be seen
when it is taken apart to reveal ‘in-form’, or better still when it is shown in
its active role as ‘in-forming’. We may well view art practice as a mode of
‘in-forming’, of putting something into a form, the ultimate form being the
finished work itself. But what is of special significance is the shift from con-
sidering information as a commodity (for example, letters, notes, etc.), its
quality as noun, to its quality as verb (informing) (Jamieson 2007). This
shift of emphasis is of special importance to an understanding of the vital-
ity of information, enabling us to view it as a process, not simply as a thing.
In doing so, we can speak of the artist as ‘in-forming’ his, or her, work
through the form-ation of ideas and the practical in-forming of materials.
On the other hand, the viewer, as recipient, is called upon to ‘in-form’ his,
or her, mind in a particular way on observing an art production. In both
instances there is work to be done; the artist has the practical task of in-
forming his or her work, and the viewer has the mental task of in-forming
his, or her, mind, which may be done consciously or subconsciously.
From the foregoing it becomes apparent that the usual interpretation of the
term ‘information’ as being a commodity, e.g. a word or letter, fails to take
account of its role as action, although it could be argued that it can be a
prompt for action, i.e. set in motion a particular thought, a patterning of mind.
What has not been mentioned, and is of special significance to an arti-
cle on the visual arts, is that information, whether it is discussed in terms
of its normal usage as a commodity, or, as it has been portrayed here as
verb, as action, has to have a source. The primary source of information in
art is that given to the visual sense, which may be perceived directly without
80 Harry Jamieson

any form of mediation, for example, drawing from nature, or indirectly
through mediated forms of communication, for example the whole range of
printed and pictorial forms.
Here we shift to a discussion of some theoretical ideas relevant to
our interest in information, in particular to the notion of ‘information
gain’. It is a term familiar to information and communication theorists
(see the work of Cherry 1961 for a fuller description of information as a
theoretical construct). Our interests centre upon the growth of informa-
tion through selection and discrimination, particularly as it relates to
vision. But we can go a step further and raise an even more fundamental
issue, that of difference. Selection and discrimination both involve an
awareness of difference.
Without the awareness of difference, without the ability to distinguish
one thing from another (in art terms this could be, for example, colour, tone
or proportion), there is little information to be found, and thus little to
engage or hold the attention of the beholder. Difference is not located in
time or space (Geoffrey Bateson 1980), it has to be thought, difference is a
relationship not a thing. However, through learning and experience an indi-
vidual becomes aware of difference(s) not previously noted, and thereby, to
use a colloquial phrase, ‘sees more in it’.
The idea of difference as an informational source places added empha-
sis on the active role of the artist as creator of information, of a person who
first of all perceives and/or creates designs from which difference can be
extracted from the interplay of the parts that make up the whole. By placing
things in juxtaposition within a design we can say that the artist offers
potentials for the observance of difference, but the viewer has the task of
what we might call ‘closing the gaps’. The way that the gaps are closed will
always be an affair of the individual, thus producing the individualism that
art always allows.
While Geoffrey Bateson’s theorizing on difference as an informational
source is significant to our understanding of the fundamentals of human
communication, from an art perspective we could propose a refinement by
including the concept of similarity. This could be placed at the lower end of
a difference continuum but, like difference in general, it is not given, it is
intuited. The important point is that whether we speak about difference or
similarity, they both require the existence of at least two entities. As states,
constructed in mind, they do not inhere in that which is observed, they are
mental constructs.
By juxtaposing elements within a design in certain relationships, the
artist presents opportunities for the observer to intuit differences or simi-
larities of a particular kind. The work itself, we might say, acts as a catalyst
for organizing/in-forming the mind of the observer, but the amount of
information extracted by the recipient is singular to that person. What can
be said is that when neither difference nor similarity is perceived or intu-
ited, there is, in information theory terms, no gain in information. And here
we might observe a connection with the oft used cliché, ‘It is all in the eye
of the beholder’. Here we have given it some deeper significance.
The comments above focus upon perception, the perception of differ-
ence and/or similarity arising from an awareness of impressions given to
vision, and their place as sources of information. But we cannot afford to

neglect the contribution that symbolism plays as a source of information in
art. Here we shift our attention from dealing with the acquisition of infor-
mation derived from direct perceptual observation to that of conception, a
non-observable faculty. A particularly good example is the use of imagery in
art, which, as icon, is intended to raise in the viewer a particular idea, e.g.
religious imagery. In effect it stands as metaphor, and, as with all metaphors,
the condition requires the existence of two things: the image/icon there
before the eye, and the idea for which it is only a ‘stand-in’. But as with per-
ception there is a gap to be filled, in this case it is between the material
image/icon and the repository of ideas stored in memory. A relationship
has to be established in the mind of the observer, and when no relationship
is found, or none that satisfies the intention behind the icon, its purpose as
metaphor becomes clouded or non-existent.
Thus again we come back to noticing the primacy of the concept of rela-
tionships in our enquiry into information. In the case of perception the
focus is upon observed relationships, which are heightened by the develop-
ment of visual acuity. In the case of conception, the relationships are unob-
servable, being in the mind; the focus here is upon what we might term
conceptual referability. In either case, perceptual and conceptual, relation-
ships have to be found or established.
Complexity
Complexity is related to information, in fact as a statement it conjures up
the idea of something bearing a multiplicity of relationships that are not
easy to resolve. But this begs the question of individual differences: com-
plexity to one person may be simplicity to another. Then again, from an art
perspective, a person viewing a work of art may say, ‘I can see nothing in it’,
implying that there is, to that person, no complexity to resolve in the first
place. The resolution of complexity can be a source of satisfaction, similar
in a way to the satisfaction that one experiences on having successfully
negotiated a route across unknown territory.
Art itself, as a productive activity, opens endless possibilities for the
creation of complexity and its resolution. The artist can create a form
with infinite relationships, which require the viewer to search carefully
for the variety of interconnections that the work offers. But as stated ear-
lier with reference to the concept of difference, there is always a demand
on the observer to ‘close the gaps’, to make the connections that unify
the parts. This involves searching and noting (mentally). In classical art
the work of Hieronymus Bosch provides a good example of complexity,
but it should be understood that non-figurative work can carry complex-
ity of a different order.
Order/disorder/entropy
The concept of entropy, as Colin Cherry (1961) wrote, ‘… is one of consid-
erable difficulty, and of deceptively apparent simplicity’. It has clearly laid
down rules for physicists. That being so, we shall aim to carry its message
and show its relevance to art in terms of everyday language.
In a descriptive sense, entropy is often referred to as a ‘measure of dis-
order’, and it is in this sense that we shall employ the term here. It has been
introduced because, as with information and complexity, it is concerned
82 Harry Jamieson

with relationships, but in a negative way, with disorder. Trends in modern
art often seem to exemplify entropy, a lack of established order, but on
inspection, order of a different kind may be found. It is this that we need to
emphasize, and we need to be aware of the fact that artwork is initially cre-
ated on the basis of at least some disorder, that, as a task, it calls upon
things to be ordered, i.e. to in-form (put into form) the un-formed. In dis-
cussing entropy (disorder) in relation to artwork, the notion of chaos (defined
in the OUP dictionary as ‘formless void’) springs to mind, suggesting dis-
order, and yet, on inspection, it becomes evident that at least partial disor-
der is a necessary foundation for all artwork.
This reasoning is based on the fact that such work proceeds on the
basis of having something, an idea or medium, to be put into some form or
order. The finished work is the end of an ordering/forming process. The
process can be described as a search for, or the creation of, relationships, in
which order arises from disorder. The resulting order is given in space, usu-
ally within a frame. It becomes a presentation with a particular order, which
the viewer is called upon to comprehend, or in aesthetic terms, to find sat-
isfaction in its form ‘in its own right’.
The corollary to this is that when the viewer is unable to observe order,
when he or she fails to make the necessary connections that give unity to
the whole, there is an increase in entropy. The amount of entropy/disorder
is determined, not by the work, but by the viewer’s ability to perceive order,
although it must be understood that at any time the viewer can create his or
her own kind of order from the viewing experience, and thereby reduce the
negative effects of entropy.
In drawing attention to information, complexity and entropy as concepts
which have a bearing upon art, its processes and understanding, and return-
ing to the assertion by Mendes-France and Henaut that ‘they are the same
facets of the same reality’, we are now in a position to answer the question
of what is the basis of this reality. From the foregoing descriptions of the
three factors, information, complexity and entropy, it becomes clear that
what is common to them is their fundamental base in the idea of relation-
ships. Information, as a term concerned with form, is constructed on the
basis of relationships. Complexity is also concerned with form, and it is
bound up with multiplicity of relationships. Entropy, as a concept concerned
with disorder, is centred upon relationships, although in a negative way.
In art practice these relationships may be compact, invoking multiple
connections that call for subtle or careful discrimination of, for example,
colour, tone or shape. The artwork may be created to be knowingly dense,
or complex, in which case the viewer as observer is called upon to search
for connections/relationships in many directions. The more connections or
relationships that are found, the greater will be the information to that per-
son. Throughout, information has been emphasized not as a commodity
but as a product of mind that involves a search for relationships, but it is in
the awareness of difference that information has its ultimate source.
Relationships themselves always involve the idea of difference, a kind of
between ‘this and that’, the unity that we perceive is a result of the mental
‘gap jumping’ that we spoke about earlier. In aesthetics the awareness of
difference at subtle levels can be a source of satisfaction and indeed plea-
sure, which we might call an enlightenment provided by the senses.

Conclusion
What stands out clearly from the various strands that we have dealt with in
pursuing the fundamentals of art practice and art appreciation is the pri-
macy of relationships. Apart from the implications it holds for art theory,
this could be seen to be of special interest to those in the field of education.
In writing about intelligence, Rex Knight (1956) gave perhaps the most suc-
cinct definition of intelligence, which he described as ‘the eduction of cor-
relates’, which in plain English means none other than seeing or adducing
relationships. As the central finding of this article points to the primacy of
the perception and conception of relationships in art, we may conclude that
at its core the practice of art is a manifestation of intelligence.
References
Bateson, G. (1980), Mind and Nature, London: Fontana.
Cherry, C. (1961), On Human Communication, New York: Wiley.
Jamieson, H. (2007), Visual Communication: More Than Meets the Eye, Bristol:
Intellect Books.
Knight, R. (1956), Intelligence and Intelligence Testing, London: Methuen.
Mendes-France, M. and Henaut, A. (1994), ‘Art, Therefore Entropy’, Leonardo, 9:3,
pp. 219–221.
Suggested citation
Jamieson, H. (2008), ‘Forming art: making and responding’, Journal of Visual Arts
Practice 7: 1, pp. 75–84, doi: 10.1386/jvap.7.1.75/1.
Contributor details
The author has been engaged in aspects of the visual throughout his professional
career. After a period in art education, teaching and carrying out research into per-
ceptual aspects of learning, he moved to a full-time research post in the university
sector. He was a co-founder of the Department of Communication Studies at the
University of Liverpool, where he focused upon matters visual.
Contact: 45 Green Lane, Wallasey, Wirral, CH45 8JG.
E-mail: hghjamieson@btinternet.com
84 Harry Jamieson

Forming art ; making and responding

Forming art ; making and responding

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Forming art ; making and responding

Similar to Forming art ; making and responding (20)

More from Ahmad Faizul

More from Ahmad Faizul (16)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Forming art ; making and responding